# Read All About it! Bush says bill goes to far



## macjoe53 (Jul 8, 2007)

*Bush says bill to insure children goes too far
Veto threat one of nearly a dozen as fiscal year ends*

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
THE NEW YORK TIMES

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, bracing for a series of battles with Congress over spending, threatened on Thursday to veto a bill expanding a popular children's health insurance program, calling it "a step toward federalization of health care."

The program expires Sept. 30, and Congress is on the verge of renewing it by providing coverage to an additional 4 million children over the 6.6 million already enrolled -- at an additional cost of $35 billion over five years. Bush says the bill would expand a program aimed at helping the poor beyond its original intent.

The veto threat is just one of nearly a dozen the White House has issued recently aimed at a variety of bills including measures on education spending and financing for medical research. With the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, Bush and congressional Democrats are headed for a showdown over spending similar to the one that preceded the government shutdown of 1995.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers have yet to complete action on any of their 12 major spending bills. But even if they do, Bush will not sign them; he has issued veto threats on 10 of the 11 appropriations measures passed so far by the House.

At his news conference Thursday, Bush sought to get out ahead of the Democrats by painting them as big spenders and himself as a responsible steward of taxpayers' money. He urged Democrats to pass a temporary extension of the health insurance program, and accused them of playing politics with children's health care by waiting until the program was about to lapse to send him legislation they know he will veto.

"In other words," Bush said, "members of Congress are putting health coverage for poor children at risk so they can score political points in Washington."

Democrats are trying to force Bush into the uncomfortable position of vetoing a bill covering 10 million children before any spending bills reach his desk. They are casting Bush as the compassionate conservative who forgot his compassion.

"They thought they were going to get a fight on spending appropriations, and what they're getting is 10 million children's health care," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois Democrat who is chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "Sept. 30 is the deadline on kids' health care. We're going to meet that deadline and he's going to get a chance to side with 10 million kids or not."

If Bush's emphasis on fiscal restraint is angering Democrats, it is pleasing conservatives in Bush's own party, who long have accused the president of allowing government spending to run amok. That criticism is percolating again in Washington this week from an unlikely source: Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, who in a new book has accused Bush of putting Republican politics ahead of fiscal responsibility.

On Thursday, Bush defended himself: "I respectfully disagree with Alan Greenspan when it comes to saying that this administration didn't handle the fiscal -- the fiscal issues we faced in good fashion. As a matter of fact, we did."

In calling for Congress to pass a "clean, temporary extension" of the current State Children's Health Insurance Program, Bush argued that the Democratic bill would raise taxes and allow children whose families earn up to $83,000 a year to enroll. The Democrats propose paying for the measure by raising the federal excise tax on cigarettes.

But the chief Republican sponsor of the bill in the Senate, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, said Bush "is getting bad information." He said Bush's reference to the $83,000 limit was drawn from a proposal put forth by New York state to receive an exemption from the program's restrictions, which the administration recently denied.

The senator said he appealed to the president directly on Thursday morning, telling Bush that a long-term extension of the current law would leave children uncovered, and that the $5 billion increase in the program the president has proposed is not enough to cover more children.

"Drawing lines in the sand at this stage isn't constructive," Grassley said, adding, "I wish he'd engage Congress in a bill that he could sign instead of threatening a veto, and I hope he'll still do that."

Democrats were more pointed. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., accused Bush of a "stubborn and uncompassionate stance," while Rep. John Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who is the longest-serving member of the House, called Bush's stance "shameful."

The House and the Senate have approved the legislation in different forms, and for the last month they have been trying to reconcile their differences. Though they have not announced the fine points of their final bill, they have agreed on its major provisions and are expected to approve it next week. But it is unlikely that the approval will come with a veto-proof margin.


----------



## Budprince (Mar 29, 2007)

Let's hope he vetoes this one!


----------



## Darrell (Aug 12, 2007)

Don't let us down here, GW. :chk


----------



## 12stones (Jan 6, 2006)

It's ridiculous that they how they keep touting that this is for the kids. I think Bush is right when he says this is a ploy to boost the Democratic popularity.

I definitely think there needs to be some kind of help for underpriveledged children whose parents are not in a situation to afford decent health care; however, I don't think the funds to pay for the program needs to come only from smoker's pockets.

This better be vetoed as the compromise points aren't all that great either and still place all the burden on us. Plus, notice how the article only says they're raising the tax on cigarettes? Effin' media can't even get the story straight.


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl (Sep 8, 2005)

macjoe53 said:


> ...Bush's emphasis on fiscal restraint...


Bush's _what_ now?!

Can we get a chewing-my-tongue-off smiley? I seem to need one every time this topic comes up.

BTW, did anyone else notice that this story did not mention tobacco once? Does anyone know what percentage of the funding for SCHIP is supposed to come from taxes on tobacco? 100%? 10%? 1%?


----------



## Spect (Sep 19, 2007)

Even if he does veto it I've got a bad feeling about how things will go down in 2008.


----------



## macjoe53 (Jul 8, 2007)

Just remember vote Republican. They are not much better than the democrats but they do seem to be able to think by themselves occasionally.


----------



## borndead1 (Oct 21, 2006)

macjoe53 said:


> Just remember vote Republican. They are not much better than the democrats but they do seem to be able to think by themselves occasionally.


Look at how many "republicans" voted yes on SCHIP.

The Democrats and Republicans can each kiss one of my ass cheeks. I'm voting straight ticket Libertarian.

Unless, of course, Ron Paul somehow gets the nomination.


----------



## 12stones (Jan 6, 2006)

Corona Gigante said:


> Bush's _what_ now?!
> 
> Can we get a chewing-my-tongue-off smiley? I seem to need one every time this topic comes up.
> 
> BTW, did anyone else notice that this story did not mention tobacco once? Does anyone know what percentage of the funding for SCHIP is supposed to come from taxes on tobacco? 100%? 10%? 1%?


Damn Liberals...only seeing what they want to see!! :r :tu



> In calling for Congress to pass a "clean, temporary extension" of the current State Children's Health Insurance Program, Bush argued that the Democratic bill would raise taxes and allow children whose families earn up to $83,000 a year to enroll. The Democrats propose paying for the measure by raising the federal excise tax on cigarettes.


----------



## Corona Gigante-cl (Sep 8, 2005)

12stones said:


> Damn Liberals...only seeing what they want to see!! :r :tu


Save me your right-wing spin, Ricky! See where I said "this story did not mention _tobacco _once?" Can you show me where the story mentions tobacco? No, you can't, because it doesn't! CASE CLOSED!



> The Democrats propose paying for the measure by raising the federal excise tax on cigarettes.


I don't smoke cigarettes. Nasty, foul smelling things. Bad for your health, too, I hear.


----------



## oddball (Feb 14, 2006)

The new federal Tobacco Tax would generate $35 billion of the $60 billion for the healthcare program. Rep. James Clyburn (NC) stated who cares about the tax; the tobacco farmers from his district benefit from federal buyouts & subsidies, and only smokers would bear the burden. Other revenue would be generated through cuts in Medicare/caid. 

Many states are trying to figure out the qualified families for such a plan, based on household income. States like NY are trying to get a 400% of poverty level qualification, roughly $85,000 a year (top 25% of the income bracket). And the new legisislation would increase the age of a "child" to 25 years old. 

You can see what this is.


----------



## Darrell (Aug 12, 2007)

Corona Gigante said:


> Save me your right-wing spin, Ricky! See where I said "this story did not mention _tobacco _once?" Can you show me where the story mentions tobacco? No, you can't, because it doesn't! CASE CLOSED!


Don't hold anything back.


----------



## 12stones (Jan 6, 2006)

Corona Gigante said:


> Save me your right-wing spin, Ricky! See where I said "this story did not mention _tobacco _once?" Can you show me where the story mentions tobacco? No, you can't, because it doesn't! CASE CLOSED!
> 
> I don't smoke cigarettes. Nasty, foul smelling things. Bad for your health, too, I hear.


Once again, damn liberals only seeing what they want to see. No matter how much you don't like them, Nicholas, cigarettes still get to be classified as tobacco. So, it's mentioned.

Kinda like me not liking liberals, but I still gotta call them 'people.' :chk


----------



## smokinpoke (Apr 8, 2006)

even though i am not a bushie this is going to wreck what little of image he has left. but hey at least i don't have to pay $17.50 for an LGR


----------



## replicant_argent (May 13, 2006)

You know, it never ceases to amaze me how someone can find a way to complain about something *good.*

You may now resume your regularly scheduled programming whilst I find some new rope for a certain "task"


----------



## ss396 (Sep 24, 2005)

i wouldn't mind a reasonable tax increase on cigars. but i think going from $0.10 per stick to $10.00 per stick is completely unreasonable. the tax could exceed the initial value of the cigar. the cigar business could be crushed. it would just be a nuisance for me, but people could lose their jobs and businesses big time if this goes through.


----------



## SmokeyJoe (Oct 3, 2006)

Darrell said:


> Don't let us down here, GW. :chk


:tpd: Counting on you, Prez. :ss


----------



## smokinpoke (Apr 8, 2006)

ss396 said:


> i wouldn't mind a reasonable tax increase on cigars. but i think going from $0.10 per stick to $10.00 per stick is completely unreasonable. the tax could exceed the initial value of the cigar. the cigar business could be crushed. it would just be a nuisance for me, but people could lose their jobs and businesses big time if this goes through.


nah there is always the internet. I might have to go to mexico and set up shop.


----------



## 12stones (Jan 6, 2006)

ss396 said:


> i wouldn't mind a reasonable tax increase on cigars. but i think going from $0.10 per stick to $10.00 per stick is completely unreasonable. the tax could exceed the initial value of the cigar. the cigar business could be crushed. it would just be a nuisance for me, but people could lose their jobs and businesses big time if this goes through.


This has been downgraded in the Senate to about a $3 max tax per stick. Still outrageous...


----------



## nimravus01 (Aug 15, 2007)

12stones said:


> Plus, notice how the article only says they're raising the tax on cigarettes? Effin' media can't even get the story straight.


The media is always getting important details like that wrong. For example, every gun used in a crime is an AK-47... Oh, wait it's a .22LR bolt action... Ah, same thing right -media?

I digress... Anyway, just about every letter I got back from politicians I sent letters to don't even acknowledge the cigar/pipe tax. It's always about cigarettes. Sheesh!


----------



## 12stones (Jan 6, 2006)

nimravus01 said:


> The media is always getting important details like that wrong. For example, every gun used in a crime is an AK-47... Oh, wait it's a .22LR bolt action... Ah, same thing right -media?
> 
> I digress... Anyway, just about every letter I got back from politicians I sent letters to don't even acknowledge the cigar/pipe tax. It's always about cigarettes. Sheesh!


That's how they make it justifiable. If they show that they're going after the "bad" stuff, then maybe it'll pass.


----------



## ca21455 (Jul 23, 2006)

Always had a problem with specific taxes that go somewhere other then the targeted item. For example using road taxes to boost the general fund or tobacco taxes used for children's health-care.

If I have to pay a 50% tax on tobacco to take care of tobacco related illness, so be it. 

If we have to pay for children's health-care then increase my Medicare payments. Better yet, use the billions we already have on important issues and quit spending it on junk.


----------



## Coffee Grounds (Feb 14, 2007)

The bill is nothing more than a step to socialized medicine that is going to be funded with tobacco tax. The tobacco funding will not be able to sustain such a program. On the bill $80,000 for house hold salary would qualify for their dependents on the plan. I would say that 80% of the country would put their kids on the plan because its free. It not really free but thats how they pitch it. 
The age for a dependent child would move to 24. SO now we would have a entire generation coming up that does not know the cost of health care.

Now the Doctors that would treat this class of socialized medicine would have to reduce there fee's even more than what they do now with medicare.
So this would create rationing of health care. This means that the docotors that would treat this class would say I am only treating these people one day a week because they could treat another class with no socialized medicine and make more money.

The other problem with the bill is the states can then take the federal funding for SCHIP can be allocated for other welfare type programs within the state. Then we would see a large increase of adults that would then qualify for state funded health insurance along with a huge increase of Gov. employees to administer these plans.

There is no way the $60 billion for 5 years would be enough money to fund this type of program. I think this type of socialized plan would be around $60 billion a year. So where is the money going to come from? Tobacco tax is not going to be enough. Everyone with a computer will buy their tobacco in the tax free zone of the net. So where does the money come from?

The current program is working and does not need to be changed. They are insuring some 80% of the kids that need it and the other 20% would qualify for welfare if the parents filled out some paper work. 

This is nothing more than the libs fighting for socialized medicine. If you look at the countries that practice socialized medicine you will see they have a huge problem with quality of care. The city of Cleveland has more MRI machines than all of Europe. As we speak Canada is forming a private sector for their healthcare because of the quality of care and they can not keep any good doctors. Others countries with it have 45% income tax rates. 

Our healthcare system is not perfect but its the best in the world.

If you just read all this you must be bored and its time for a smoke!


----------



## nimravus01 (Aug 15, 2007)

:tpd: Having parents in the medical field, I tend to agree with Coffee Grounds.

The very first thing you learn in economics is There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. You will pay for it with higher taxes or "pay" for it with a decrease in quality, (or both.) You might not have to pay money directly to a doctors office, but it's never really free.


----------



## macjoe53 (Jul 8, 2007)

Then there was the interesting story on CBS Radio news this morning. Almost 8 billion dollars a year is being spent on "routine" office visits and unnecessary medical test every year. That is almost as much as spent on treating breast cancer according to the story.


----------

